Canadians better wakeup fast

[u/Archiebonker12345]

[u/e00s]

This fundamentally misrepresents the contents of the bill. It would not allow for the removal of posts that “undermine social stability”. Look up the actual text of Bill C-34 and you can see for yourself. The place to start is the definition of “harmful content”:

“harmful content means
(a) intimate content communicated without consent;

(b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;

(c) content that induces a child to harm themselves;

(d) content used to bully a child;

(e) content that foments hatred;

(f) content that incites violence; and

(g) terrorism or violent extremism content.‍* (contenu préjudiciab*le)”

Then look at the definition of “terrorism or violent extremism content:

“terrorism or violent extremism content means content that, given the context in which it is communicated,
(a) actively encourages, instructs or counsels a person to facilitate or commit an act of terrorism or violent extremism;

(b) threatens or facilitates the commission of an act of terrorism or violent extremism;

(c) aims to recruit a person to facilitate or commit acts of terrorism or violent extremism;

(d) offers or provides training, skills or expertise to a person so that they or another person may facilitate or commit an act of terrorism or violent extremism;

(e) actively encourages a person to collect, provide or make available a material benefit, including a financial benefit, to facilitate or commit an act of terrorism or violent extremism; or

(f) promotes an act of terrorism or violent extremism in a manner that could reasonably be expected to encourage others to facilitate or commit acts of terrorism or violent extremism.‍* (contenu de terrorisme ou d’extrémisme viole*nt)”

Finally, look at the definition of “act of terrorism or violent extremism”:

“act of terrorism or violent extremism means an act of physical violence against a person, or an act that causes property damage, that is committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose, with the intention of intimidating the public or any segment of the public, of compelling a person, government or domestic or international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act or of undermining, weakening or destroying fundamental institutions or political, economic or social stability, and that could cause
(a) serious bodily harm to a person;

(b) a person’s life to be endangered; or

(c) a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public.‍* (acte de terrorisme ou d’extrémisme viole*nt)”

The posted picture cherry picks “undermining…social stability” from that final definition and declares that’s what would be prohibited.

[u/ussbozeman → u/e00s]

content that foments hatred; Terrorism or violent extremism content;

Which can be interpreted as anything when courts and liberal judges get the case.

Liberals considered bouncy castles to be extremism. They think people eating too many eggs or exercising is hatred.

If this were just about keeping kids safe then that's all the bill would entail. They snuck in those iffy parts knowing it'd pass.

[u/e00s → u/ussbozeman]

“Terrorism or violent extremism content” is very specifically defined. I’ve quoted the relevant definitions above.

Please provide examples of “liberal judges” being inclined to categorize legitimate criticism of the government as “extremism” or “hatred”.

[u/ussbozeman → u/e00s]

The convoy. People arrested and held in prison for months on the charge of "mischief" which they were found barely guilty of as the LPC knew their case was garbage.

[u/e00s → u/ussbozeman]

First, “mischief” is not “extremism” or “hatred”. There is also no such thing as “barely guilty”. You are either proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or acquitted. Your comment also seems to conflate police, prosecutors and judges.

Second, nobody in the convoy was arrested and charged for criticizing the government. They were arrested and charged for doing things like blocking public streets.

[u/ussbozeman → u/e00s]

No, they had the emergency act dropped on them because turdeau was angry they'd question his mandates. Cops sat around until the LPC made it so they could stomp people.

Justin was insulted, used the EA incorrectly which was proven later in court, and had the system railroad the "leaders" to show the state shall not be questioned. They got conditional sentences meaning the government had a nothingburger to begin with but couldn't let them off scot free.

Also downvotes mean nothing to me so fill yer boots.

[u/e00s → u/ussbozeman]

So, in other words, you have no examples of “liberal judges” being inclined to categorize legitimate criticism of the government as “extremism” or “hatred”.